house Bill H.R. 7036

Argument in favor

Economic growth and innovation are undermined by intellectual property theft and patent infringement. Businesses that don’t abide by IP law shouldn’t be allowed to continue conducting business and getting ahead of the competition through dirty tactics.

End the stupid trade war and crack down on these intellectual cyber crimes

Like
(20)

Follow

Share

Argument opposed

The Commerce Department is already actively addressing patent issues and intellectual theft. Individual companies are also vigilant about their own IP, filing cases in court and pursuing other remedies — such as royalties — for patent infringement.

I’m sorry, but the deal killer is the removal of the requirement for an aggrieved plaintiff to prove irreparable harm. In the context of foreign corporate espionage it sounds good, but it endangers fair use and ignores the Edison effect. We CAN fight foreign corporate espionage without gutting rights for smaller developers and artists.

As this reads, it sounds like it’s a good plan. However, this act will enable and enforce big business ~ even more than they are. As this is already being addressed by the Commerce Department, (the agency tasked to control such issues), why another act? Is it to say ‘we really, really mean it’ vs ‘we really mean it’? There is so much waste in our government, both waste of money and waste of time.

The removal of the requirement for an aggrieved plaintiff to prove irreparable harm is s must. It covers foreign corporate espionage well, but fair use is in danger and it does nothing to protect from the Edison effect. We Must fight foreign corporate espionage, BUT WE CAN’T take away smaller developers and artists rights. Seems to me the TTP covered this. Trump did away with it because it was an Obama idea. Reinstate the TTP.

Bill Data

What is House Bill H.R. 7036?

This bill — the ZTE Theft Act — would remove the requirement that certain covered entities prove they were irreparably harmed when seeking preliminary injunctions in civil actions for patent infringement. It’d also make covered entities eligible for export privileges only if they maintain an export eligibility account and certify to the Attorney General that they have entered into license agreements with the U.S. persons that own patents they’re using, will abide by U.S. law, and won’t engage in cyber espionage or the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property or trade secrets on their own behalf or to benefit foreign countries.

For the purposes of this bill, covered entities are entities that:

Are providing or producing telecommunications, software, or electronics equipment;

Has a headquarters or principal place of business located in a region administered or governed by the People’s Republic of China (excluding Taiwan);

Were denied export privileges on or after March 8, 2016; and

Were subsequently removed by the Secretary of Commerce from the List of Denied Persons maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce upon the restoration of such privileges.

“[F]oreign backed firms from countries like China and Russia regularly… steal intellectual property and undermine America’s critical infrastructure. The FBI has already determined that foreign state actors pose a serious cyber threat to the telecommunications supply chain. It is also clear that many foreign nations are responsible for direct cyber attacks on the United States in an effort to steal intellectual property and sensitive personal information.”

President Trump has accused China of “unfair and harmful acquisition of U.S. technology,” which hurts American companies and discourages innovation. David Kline, an intellectual property strategist, points out that ZTE is a prime example of this:

“A search of PACER (the national index of federal court cases) reveals that in the U.S. alone, ZTE has been sued for patent infringement an astonishing 126 times just in the last five years. This number is even more shocking when you consider that only a subset of companies who believe their IP rights have been violated by ZTE has the means or the will to spend the millions of dollars needed to wage a multi-year lawsuit in federal courts. But ZTE’s IP thievery is not confined just to the United States. According to one Chinese tech publication, ZTE has also been sued for patent infringement an additional 100 times in China, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, India, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and other countries. As an intellectual property renegade, ZTE certainly gets around. Even when it’s not being sued, ZTE thumbs its nose at the traditional rules of fair play in intellectual property matters, commonly engaging in delay, misrepresentation, and hold out when dealing with patent owners. While ZTE is more than happy to accept royalty payments for the use of its own intellectual property, it rarely if ever pays for the use of others’ IP.”

“Within the confines of trade, that’s a hard question. A friend who oversaw IP policy for the USTR several administrations ago once commented to me that people thought of the USTR as John Wayne rushing into dens of IP iniquity, six-shooters ablaze, when the reality was that he was Archie Bunker shooting off nothing more than his mouth. The US and other countries have achieved important successes under the World Trade Organization’s TRIPs Agreement [Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights] with a dispute resolution process that is far more deliberate than the 301 process. But, although many sober voices have argued for this as the preferable route, it’s far from clear that TRIPs will cover all of the forms of IP appropriation that are the object of the current 301 process, or that the current administration has the will or the patience to follow this avenue. And there are other trade alternatives, such as a bilateral investment treaty with China that could draw on the IP provisions of the so-called TRIPs-Plus free trade agreements with other countries.”

ZTE’s export privileges were restored after the White House intervened in ZTE’s favor. Originally, Congress added a provision to the annual defense bill to reimpose a seven-year ban on ZTE buying gear in the U.S. market, effectively putting the company out of business — but heavy lobbying from the White House led to lawmakers eventually softening their stance to merely preventing the federal government from working with ZTE, Huawei (another Chinese technology company), or “any entities controlled by the government of the People’s Republic of China.”

“ZTE installed data storage units built by Dell Technologies. Though Dell's transaction appears to have been with ZTE in China, we are concerned that ZTE may have violated US export controls by misidentifying the end-user or purpose of the end-use. The Venezuelan government hired ZTE to build a database and develop a mobile payment system for a smart ID card. In developing the database for this ID card, ZTE reportedly embedded its employees in a unit of Venezuela's state telecommunications firm, CANTV — the president of which is subject to US sanctions."

To amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to actions for patent infringement, and for other purposes.

I’m sorry, but the deal killer is the removal of the requirement for an aggrieved plaintiff to prove irreparable harm. In the context of foreign corporate espionage it sounds good, but it endangers fair use and ignores the Edison effect. We CAN fight foreign corporate espionage without gutting rights for smaller developers and artists.

As this reads, it sounds like it’s a good plan. However, this act will enable and enforce big business ~ even more than they are. As this is already being addressed by the Commerce Department, (the agency tasked to control such issues), why another act? Is it to say ‘we really, really mean it’ vs ‘we really mean it’? There is so much waste in our government, both waste of money and waste of time.

The removal of the requirement for an aggrieved plaintiff to prove irreparable harm is s must. It covers foreign corporate espionage well, but fair use is in danger and it does nothing to protect from the Edison effect. We Must fight foreign corporate espionage, BUT WE CAN’T take away smaller developers and artists rights. Seems to me the TTP covered this. Trump did away with it because it was an Obama idea. Reinstate the TTP.

H.R. 7036 AKA the ZTE Theft Act
No By All Means, Why The Heck Not.......ZTE?
I support and recommend the passage of HOUSE Bill H.R. 7036 AKA the ZTE Theft Act — which would remove the requirement that certain covered entities prove they were irreparably harmed when seeking preliminary injunctions in civil actions for patent infringement.
It’d also make covered entities eligible for export privileges only if they maintain an export eligibility account and certify to the Attorney General that they have entered into license agreements with the U.S. persons that own patents they’re using, will abide by U.S. law, and won’t engage in cyber espionage or the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property or trade secrets on their own behalf or to benefit foreign countries.
SneakyPete..... 👍🏻👨‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👍🏻. 12*7*18.....

I am all for stopping China from stealing IP, but patent laws need completely re-hauled. Right now they favor big business and harm independent small business artists. This bill strengthens existing patent laws. Stop China without hurting small businesses and artists.

Yes, as I have said numerous times. In my travels to mainland China, they have entire malls or multi floor stores called “Copy” stores. That everything from electronics to clothing & software, all of which is counterfeit. Every time we send machines to China for manufacturing they hold them I. Customs to reverse engineer the newer technologies. A blatant rip off of intellectual property.